I know this isn’t quite the same as what’s happening in the article, but: what do you use when referring to a singular person of unknown gender?
A. Use "he or she," etc.; or
B. Rewrite the sentence.
The article features frequent usage of Alon's name, to avoid using they/then as much, just as you would with he/she.
The briefest of searches for Alon's name shows their Twitter profile[1] with "(they/them)" as part of their account name -- which also includes their Mastodon profile[2], itself showing a pronoun box listing "They/them."
[1] https://twitter.com/alon_levy [2] https://mastodon.social/@alon
It's a shame someone so educated appears to be getting riled up over something so small and trivial -- respecting Alon's pronouns neither harms anyone, nor makes the article any more difficult to read.
The fact that you try and use that term when you clearly don't even know the definition, shows you to be nothing more than ignorant and bigoted. Good job.
(That's why I put the term in quotes. In part, it's to tweak the noses of people who rail against something that the law doesn't recognize as "a thing." What those folks call "cultural appropriation," the law calls "laudably propagating good ideas and practices, subject to any applicable restrictions that have been duly enacted into law.")
Being an IP lawyer won't win you any points, especially when you're ignorantly refusing basic facts of language even with empirical evidence.
Modern readers are taught from childhood that gender isn't binary, and that singular 'they' is a perfectly acceptable way to refer to someone, and has the historical precedent to back it up.
It's confusing you as a reader, but the arbitrary claim that it confuses "the reader" is a baseless and inaccurate one. It's 2022 D.C., contemporary usage of singular 'they' isn't rare or unheard of in any way, and its frequent usage without complaint -- except from certain groups who take umbrage with non-cisgender peoples' existence, of course.
Surely a fellow as learned as yourself should be able to grasp the concept of singular they? -- it's been around for centuries... The fact that you're demanding a writer invents and starts using a new gender-neutral pronoun is ridiculous.
Firstly, singular 'they' is perfectly suited to this purpose, and has been used historically without an issue. Secondly, if you can't grasp the concept of singular they, you're clearly not going to be any less antagonistic about a newly-created alternative. Finally, your use of "Ms." seems to conflate pronouns and titles -- FYI, the gender-neutral title "Mx." has been adopted for many years, but (a) isn't used by every non-binary or gender-non-conforming person, and (b) is a title, not a pronoun -- so cannot be used interchangeably as such.
Since the author of the article uses they/them pronouns, your claimed solution of "he or she" wouldn't apply. At all.
Perhaps some reading could go some way to alleviating your irritation?
"A Brief History of Singular 'they'" https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/677177
Writeup by the Oxford English Dictionary: https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...
If you'd like to read a bit more about its usage for both non-binary people, and to refer to people of unknown or unspecified gender -- as well as style guides -- there's always the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
It's quite telling that you complain of people "...demanding that the rest of us go along with their throwing sand in the gears of the reading process" when (a) singular they isn't new, and has been widely adopted for these purposes -- in this case to refer to the non-binary author of the piece, and (b) you're effectively demanding people create a new singular pronoun because you refuse to adapt to a usage you personally disagree with -- regardless of it being grammatically and historically correct.
There are much bigger things to worry about than getting yourself worked up over someone's choice of pronoun, and your apparent refusal to respect that.
Alon Levy (the author)'s work is rather good. It's a shame you abandoned reading their article because of your own bigoted and blinkered views about language.
Is that a fact? Repeating another comment I made on this thread: If we take "gender" as meaning "biological sex," then it IS binary;* I can no more declare, "I have no gender" than "I have no eye color" or "I can fly by willing myself to defy gravity."
* Modulo those exceedingly-rare people who are born hermaphrodites
> Finally, your use of "Ms." seems to conflate pronouns and titles
Um, no — in my education, I learned about the use of analogies, comparisons, and precedents to illustrate a point. Here, the precedent is the coinage of a new title; there's no reason similar coinage shouldn't happen for a gender-neutral singular pronoun (which I'd be fine with using, BTW).
> you're effectively demanding people create a new singular pronoun because you refuse to adapt to a usage you personally disagree with -- regardless of it being grammatically and historically correct.
I'm only partly surprised that — in a forum where so many people complain about subpar software UIs, hard-to-read code, and the like — there are those who think it's perfectly fine to demand that the rest of us accede to "nonbinary" people's confusing language preferences for written communication.
-- but "we" don't, because they are two entirely different words with entirely different meanings. Gender is a social construct. Your supposed arguments are fallacies which fail to even get off the ground.
There is no need to create a new singular gender-neutral pronoun to appease your bitter, bigoted self, when a perfectly adequate one exists, and has both historical and contemporary use. Your refusal to acknowledge or accept history, new or old, does not invalidate grammatically correct usage that you personally disagree with.
Love how you're using scare quotes again -- do you deny those identities existing? -- or, despite the empirical evidence, and the majority of the world having no issue with it, are you just set on being hateful bigoted, and exclusionary?
The only one "confused" by singular 'they' in this context is you, old boy -- everyone else is managing to read the article without getting their proverbial panties in a bunch... so why aren't you?
Nobody "demanded" anything. It's a matter of education, and a matter of respect.
1. You refuse to acknowledge history or even the OED, the principal historical dictionary of the English language.
2. You refuse to educate yourself when your ignorance and bigotry is challenged.
3. You refuse to offer the article's author (or anyone like them) the simple common courtesy and basic respect of acknowledging and respecting their pronouns.
These are simple acts of learning and courtesy, taken by intelligent and reasonable, polite people. The fact that you make baseless accusatory claims of "demanding" when none have been made, just show further that you're engaging in ad hominems and fallacies out of bigotry and hatred, rather than any reasoned point of logic or fact.
Keep cleaning it's "confusing" all you want, but non-binary and gender non-conforming people existed long before you, outnumber those with such blinkered, exclusionary views, and will outlive you. Oh, and that goes for the existence and usage of singular 'they' too ;)
Bye.
As for respect, the fact that you're seemingly triggered by the mere concept of offering it to people, shows how little your puerile and vitriolic take matters.
Deflection and fake outrage are the bastions of angry conservatives clutching at the final straws -- then running away while deliberately avoiding the empirical facts of the matter, that you find personally inconvenient.
Hard no on that one — just because someone declares "I have no gender" doesn't make it so, any more than if I were to declare that I have no eye color.
> is longer and harder to say than the more inclusive variant!
Agreed — but in formal writing, confusing readers by appropriating the plural is not the way to fix it.
Gender is a social construct, and people are free do identify as they please. If someone decides they don't identify as binary male or female, that's their choice. It doesn't mean they declare "I have no gender," it means they don't declare to be "male" or "female."
The fact that you foolishly and arrogantly try to equate an irrefutable, immutable physical attribute like iris pigmentation, with something as ill-defined, fluid, and personal as gender, shows you're neither engaging in good faith, nor able to get past your own bigotry to even make an intelligent argument.
Once again, you're the only one being confused here, so the fake outrage and trumped-up claims of confused readership don't fly.